No. 3658 COPEPODS—LEWIS 3)5, 
somewhere else can only be determined after the type material is 
reexamined. 
There are several unique characteristics found in P. pomacanthi 
and, to some extent (reference to endopodite of second thoracic leg 
and to third thoracic leg), in P. chaetodontis (and presumably in P. 
fortipedis) which suggest a change from the general makeup of other 
cealigids: 
1. The second thoracic leg, which the present author believes is 
one of the more stable “elements” in caligids, lacks several armature 
elements in P. pomacanthi (‘“‘m,” “p,” and “s’’ on the protopodite; 
“ce”? on the inner surface of the second segment of the endopodite). 
2. The third thoracic leg, which, in P. pomacanthi and P. chaetodontis 
TaBLE 6.—Armature of thoracic legs I-IV of the female of Pseudanuretes poma- 
canthi, new species 
Inter- Exopodite Endopodite 
Leg Surface podal (PTOLONO=3) Betas ee Ok ee ee es eS 
Plate dite 
2 3 1 2 3 
I | Outer sss, D 3H, P 
Inner p’ c P, 2p 
II | Outer fm m,mH | H 1B AREIE |b} 3P 
m 
Inner P Cue 12) 2P P 2P 3P 
III | Outer m,p H ¢; ch, P’ c c, 3P 
m 
Inner m, 2s 3P 2P 
IV | Outer 2p’ 
(and P. fortipedis?), lacks the typical plumose seta (P) on the inner 
surface of the first segment of the endopodite. 
3. Several accessory processes are apparently absent on two ap- 
pendages (antenna, segment 3; maxilliped, segment 2). 
These differences, collectively, are unique. They are, however, 
listed after the observation of only a single specimen of P. pomacanthi 
and a review of the literature of P. chaetodontis and P. fortipedis. A 
reexamination of the material of the previously named species and 
other material of the presently described species is needed to clarify 
the situation. Further, the degree of sclerotization of the various body 
parts in P. pomacanthi is, in general, much less than in many other 
caligids, making the interpretation of many parts (e.g., maxillule) 
difficult. 
The name ‘‘pomacanthv”’ is derived from the host name Pomacanthus. 
